If the U.S. Preemptively struck Iran

[GarzaUK]

Yeah. Still don't know what you're talking about. I was chiding the liberals on this forum for not standing up for what they believe in by opposing conservatism in Iran.

Liberals do oppose Cosnervatism in Iran, however you seem content on waging wars to do so to liberalise the world. As we have seen in Iraq this actually doesn't work, especially in the ME.

Islam unfortunately is not ready for Western liberal values that the US administration is so content to force them to accept. We as a people took generations to have our freedoms today. In the US it took 150 years for women to vote, black people longer and homosexuals still don't have equal rights yet. So invading a country with people who do not accept our way of life (equal rights for women, homosexuals stc), is not the answer, since it will take a long time for them to progress.
In short we cannot change their way of life, they have to do it.

Imagine if the whole Islamic world had free elections. Radical Islamic governments will control the Suez Canal, Saudi Arabian oil, they will even have Pakistani nukes, the ME will be even more hostile to Israel than it already is. Democracy in the ME in the current political climate is a BAD thing.

The ME will become democratic, but they have to do it on their own steam, we can poke and prod and offer incentives for freedom, but we cannot force them. Who forced us to take the democratic road? We did it ourselves.

 

[Kelzie]

Ild have my misgivings about it , to put it lightly, but wouldnt actively oposse it unless it was certain to make the situation worse.I certainly wouldnt be mourning the demise of the sudanise government but if this happend tomorrow i would be concerned about the fact that.

1 It was being done illegally. Whenever a powerful state like america or the uk go agaisnt international law and get away with it this sets a dangerous precedence that they are above the law. Darfur could be dealt with through the proper legal channels [though these channels are certainly in need of reform]

2 If this other reason got in the way of humantairian concerns this would lead to problems.

If a premptive strike on Iran would actually help things then your argument may have held some wait. It wouldnt liberate the iranian people.It would merely escalate conflict between Iran and America before it was even necessairy to do so.

The illegality of it is questionable. It is illegal according to international law to invade a sovereign nation unprovoked, however, the status of sovereignty only applies when a country represents their people. It can be argued that there is not a sovereign government in either the Sudan or Iran.

It's enough for me to know that you would theoretically support it.

 

[Volker]

How am I trying to belittle American history?

Slaves could go skiing, they could study, they could have a job and money...if their master's would let them. Like Iran. Unlike Iran, American slaves counted for 2/3 a vote. In the Iranian justice system, women only count for 1/2.

Iranian women count for one a vote.

Are you honestly trying to defend Iran's treatment of women? I am morally disgusted.

I point out your mistakes. A war supporter is morally disgusted :roll:

 

[Goobieman]

however, the status of sovereignty only applies when a country represents their people. It can be argued that there is not a sovereign government in either the Sudan or Iran.

Not at all true.
Nazi Germany was a sovereign state, as was Imperial Japan.

 

[Kelzie]

Liberals do oppose Cosnervatism in Iran, however you seem content on waging wars to do so to liberalise the world. As we have seen in Iraq this actually doesn't work, especially in the ME.

How many people voted in Iraq again? More than 70%? Iraq is not Iran anyway. What we're seeing in Iraq is the result of some rather ignorantly placed lines with little regard for the groups it would lump together. Iran is largely homogenous and we would not see the sectarian violence that we see in Iraq.

Islam unfortunately is not ready for Western liberal values that the US administration is so content to force them to accept. We as a people took generations to have our freedoms today. In the US it took 150 years for women to vote, black people longer and homosexuals still don't have equal rights yet. So invading a country with people who do not accept our way of life (equal rights for women, homosexuals stc), is not the answer, since it will take a long time for them to progress.
In short we cannot change their way of life, they have to do it.

Yes, and do you know what the argument was for keeping the vote from blacks? "They're not ready for it." Wome weren't "ready" to vote either. Your belief that some people are smart enough to engage in Democracy while others are not undermines Democracy itself. Democracy doesn't work for anyone unless it can work for everyone.

Imagine if the whole Islamic world had free elections. Radical Islamic governments will control the Suez Canal, Saudi Arabian oil, they will even have Pakistani nukes, the ME will be even more hostile to Israel than it already is. Democracy in the ME in the current political climate is a BAD thing.

Democracy is never a bad thing. Never. Democracy means people have to deal with the consequences of what they choose. The Palestinians are dealing with their consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas was voted out next round. That's how Democracy works.

The ME will become democratic, but they have to do it on their own steam, we can poke and prod and offer incentives for freedom, but we cannot force them. Who forced us to take the democratic road? We did it ourselves.

And? We're not forcing people to vote at gunpoint here. We're setting up the institutions for them to choose their own government and letting them go from there. The Iraqis certainly seemed fond of it.

 

[Kelzie]

Not at all true.
Nazi Germany was a sovereign state, as was Imperial Japan.

Okay...that doesn't contradict my point in the slightest, but thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Kelzie]

Iranian women count for one a vote.

Still only half a person in the courts.

I point out your mistakes. A war supporter is morally disgusted :roll:

That homosexuals are hung instead of stoned? That's not a mistake, that's a detail.

 

[Goobieman]

Okay...that doesn't contradict my point in the slightest, but thanks for pointing it out.

It might not contradict your point, but you seem to be arguing that sovereign states are protected by international law, which then implies that non-sovereign states are not. Is this correct?

If so, then what defines 'sovereignty' is relevant, and that relevance might nullify your point.

 

[Kelzie]

It might not contradict your point, but you seem to be arguing that sovereign states are protected by international law, which then implies that non-sovereign states are not. Is this correct?

If so, then what defines 'sovereignty' is relevant, and that relevance might nullify your point.

It was more of a "what should be" example than a "what is". States should represent their people. I think most of us can agree with that. I guess except Garza, who is under the impression that some people don't deserve representation. If a state doesn't represent their people, exactly what right do they have to call themselves a state?

 

[GarzaUK]

How many people voted in Iraq again? More than 70%? Iraq is not Iran anyway. What we're seeing in Iraq is the result of some rather ignorantly placed lines with little regard for the groups it would lump together. Iran is largely homogenous and we would not see the sectarian violence that we see in Iraq.

Not really. There is a huge chunk of Kurds in Western Iran and good lot of Eastern Iran has more in common with Afghanistan than the Persians. Democracy didn't stop the Shia deathsquads, the corruption, the incompetence, the Sunni insurgents, the Islamic terrorists and instability.

Yes, and do you know what the argument was for keeping the vote from blacks? "They're not ready for it." Wome weren't "ready" to vote either. Your belief that some people are smart enough to engage in Democracy while others are not undermines Democracy itself. Democracy doesn't work for anyone unless it can work for everyone.

It is not up to me to say they are not ready. It is up to them to say when they are ready. Do you know who the Iraqis voted in power? Al-Sadr, a guy who has Shia seath squads who do his bidding. Who promotes Sharia law, an opposite to liberal freedoms. Women's rights in Iraq has actually gone backwards, women in Iraq are killed if they don't cover up. Yeah democracy in Iraq has really freed the people. If indeed Sharia law is freedom.
They have to acheive democracy on their own terms, not ours.

Democracy is never a bad thing. Never. Democracy means people have to deal with the consequences of what they choose. The Palestinians are dealing with their consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if Hamas was voted out next round. That's how Democracy works.

So you would like a world with fanatics having control of the Suez Canal, Saudi oil and Pakistani nukes?? Basically the West would be held to ransom.

And? We're not forcing people to vote at gunpoint here. We're setting up the institutions for them to choose their own government and letting them go from there. The Iraqis certainly seemed fond of it.

Yeah they do, they also seem fond of voting for Sharia law, decreasing womens rights and voting in unstable governments with a grudge against someone.
Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq. Turkey is the only exception and that is because it's busy kissing Europe's ***.

 

[Goobieman]

It was more of a "what should be" example than a "what is". States should represent their people. I think most of us can agree with that. I guess except Garza, who is under the impression that some people don't deserve representation. If a state doesn't represent their people, exactly what right do they have to call themselves a state?

Doesnt that then mean that a large majority of countries in the world aren't sovereign states?

And doesn't that then mean, at least from what I think you're saying, they don't deserve/aren't entitled to the 'protection' of 'international law'?

 

[GarzaUK]

It was more of a "what should be" example than a "what is". States should represent their people. I think most of us can agree with that. I guess except Garza, who is under the impression that some people don't deserve representation. If a state doesn't represent their people, exactly what right do they have to call themselves a state?

I'm in favour of democracy, I would fight and die for the freedoms I have. But if democracy makes the world a more dangerous place, gives birth to radical governments who in likelyhood will become dictatorships and promotes Sharia law instead of tolerance, then I am against it.

 

[Kelzie]

Not really. There is a huge chunk of Kurds in Western Iran and good lot of Eastern Iran has more in common with Afghanistan than the Persians. Democracy didn't stop the Shia deathsquads, the corruption, the incompetence, the Sunni insurgents, the Islamic terrorists and instability.

Iran is more than half Persian. Only 7% Kurd...so yeah. Minority rights are required for a democracy to work, so it's kind of a moot point. And democracy doesn't have anything to do with crime.

It is not up to me to say they are not ready. It is up to them to say when they are ready. Do you know who the Iraqis voted in power? Al-Sadr, a guy who has Shia seath squads who do his bidding. Who promotes Sharia law, an opposite to liberal freedoms. Women's rights in Iraq has actually gone backwards, women in Iraq are killed if they don't cover up. Yeah democracy in Iraq has really freed the people. If indeed Sharia law is freedom.
They have to acheive democracy on their own terms, not ours.

That is completely wrong. :roll: Women in Iraq do not have to cover their heads. Again, not really a point. A democracy doesn't work unless all participants have equal opportunities. And at least the people are voting now, though we all know how you'd prefer it.

So you would like a world with fanatics having control of the Suez Canal, Saudi oil and Pakistani nukes?? Basically the West would be held to ransom.

And unless Saudi Arabia wants to eat sand, they would have to sell their oil. If Pakistan even attempted to launch their nukes, they would be a big sheet of glass. And the Suez Canal? Meh. It's Egypt's property, though I have a feeling once it stopped generating revenues they would let people through. Basically, yeah, democracy works.

Yeah they do, they also seem fond of voting for Sharia law, decreasing womens rights and voting in unstable governments with a grudge against someone.
Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq. Turkey is the only exception and that is because it's busy kissing Europe's ***.

Lebanon actually voted in a pretty decent government, as far as they go in the ME. I've already addressed Palestine and Iraq.

 

[cherokee]

Not really. There is a huge chunk of Kurds in Western Iran and good lot of Eastern Iran has more in common with Afghanistan than the Persians. Democracy didn't stop the Shia deathsquads, the corruption, the incompetence, the Sunni insurgents, the Islamic terrorists and instability.



It is not up to me to say they are not ready. It is up to them to say when they are ready. Do you know who the Iraqis voted in power? Al-Sadr, a guy who has Shia seath squads who do his bidding. Who promotes Sharia law, an opposite to liberal freedoms. Women's rights in Iraq has actually gone backwards, women in Iraq are killed if they don't cover up. Yeah democracy in Iraq has really freed the people. If indeed Sharia law is freedom.
They have to acheive democracy on their own terms, not ours.



So you would like a world with fanatics having control of the Suez Canal, Saudi oil and Pakistani nukes?? Basically the West would be held to ransom.



Yeah they do, they also seem fond of voting for Sharia law, decreasing womens rights and voting in unstable governments with a grudge against someone.
Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq. Turkey is the only exception and that is because it's busy kissing Europe's ***.

So are you saying that because of the US Iraqi women have lost human rights?

 

[Kelzie]

Doesnt that then mean that a large majority of countries in the world aren't sovereign states?

And doesn't that then mean, at least from what I think you're saying, they don't deserve/aren't entitled to the 'protection' of 'international law'?

Not at all. According to Freedom House, 51 countries are classified as "not free". Those are the ones that aren't soveriegn.

And yes, at least in my opinion. Though I'm sceptical that international law provides any sort of protection to these countries in the first place. I mean really, what has the international community wanted to do to say...Tunisia...but didn't because they were a "sovereign nation".

 

[Kelzie]

I'm in favour of democracy, I would fight and die for the freedoms I have. But if democracy makes the world a more dangerous place, gives birth to radical governments who in likelyhood will become dictatorships and promotes Sharia law instead of tolerance, then I am against it.

Remember, the Democratic Peace Theory has never been proven wrong.

 

[Goobieman]

Not at all. According to Freedom House, 51 countries are classified as "not free". Those are the ones that aren't soveriegn.

Well, given your posts to that effect, it seems like the definition of "sovereign" is a little more broad than "not free". But, OK.

Not sure how Nazi Germany wasn't a sovereign state.

And yes, at least in my opinion. Though I'm sceptical that international law provides any sort of protection to these countries in the first place

.
"International law" is the sum total of treaty law and historical custom.

Certainly, if you make a treaty with a state, "sovereign" or not, you are bound to that treaty, at least until such a time that you withdraw from it -- else, there's no argument that we were bound to any treaties we signed with the USSR (for example).

And historical custom easily recognizes that the people of a state need not be "free" for that state to be "sovereign" -- certainly, the idea of a "free" state is far more recent than that of a "sovereign" state.

 

[GarzaUK]

Iran is more than half Persian. Only 7% Kurd...so yeah. Minority rights are required for a democracy to work, so it's kind of a moot point. And democracy doesn't have anything to do with crime.

I never said it had anything to do with crime, it just hasn't prevented it.

That is completely wrong. :roll: Women in Iraq do not have to cover their heads. Again, not really a point. A democracy doesn't work unless all participants have equal opportunities. And at least the people are voting now, though we all know how you'd prefer it.

Are you sure about that?

Putting a mark on a piece of paper doesn't make a liberal democracy. Do homosexuals and women have equal opportunies in democratic nations in the ME... truely??

And unless Saudi Arabia wants to eat sand, they would have to sell their oil. If Pakistan even attempted to launch their nukes, they would be a big sheet of glass. And the Suez Canal? Meh. It's Egypt's property, though I have a feeling once it stopped generating revenues they would let people through. Basically, yeah, democracy works.

True the will have to seel their oil, and there is plenty of other buyers than the West. Very hard to see how Pakistan would be turned into glass, seeing as they aren't a desert country as such. Suez Canal, I suppose it isn't important, just basically the biggest trade route in the world.
You see Kelzie we are so used to democracy we forget how fragile it is, how it can be ursurped and corrupted. Demoracy works for us, completely. How has democracy faired in Africa, the ME, Latin America, in those places where democracy can barely stand up.
If you want to democratise the world by force, fine, but don't complain about the consequences

Lebanon actually voted in a pretty decent government, as far as they go in the ME. I've already addressed Palestine and Iraq.

That was before the Israeli-Lebanon war wasn't it? I'm not looking forward to the next elections in Lebanon.

 

[Goobieman]

Remember, the Democratic Peace Theory has never been proven wrong.

UK v Iceland, the Cod War, 1975-1976 :mrgreen:

 

[Kelzie]

Well, given your posts to that effect, it seems like the definition of "sovereign" is a little more broad than "not free". But, OK.

Not sure how Nazi Germany wasn't a sovereign state.

The people did vote for Hitler, although voting isn't necessarily required for sovereignty. Just makes it a whole lot easier to decide who represents their people and who doesn't.

.
"International law" is the sum total of treaty law and historical custom.

Certainly, if you make a treaty with a state, "sovereign" or not, you are bound to that treaty, at least until such a time that you withdraw from it -- else, there's no argument that we were bound to any treaties we signed with the USSR (for example).

Mmm...yes, to a degree. A treaty is an agreement between two governments who presumably represent their people. If they do, there's no problem. If one or both don't, than issues arise. Like when a random evil dictator sells his countries diamonds to build palaces while his people starve.

And historical custom easily recognizes that the people of a state need not be "free" for that state to be "sovereign" -- certainly, the idea of a "free" state is far more recent than that of a "sovereign" state.

Well, the definition of "sovereign" has evolved a great deal. It used to be "of God/of the people". Now it's just "of the people". The populous counts for a lot more and the leaders a lot less than used to be the case.

 

[Kelzie]

I never said it had anything to do with crime, it just hasn't prevented it.

Seeing as a democracy isn't supposed to prevent crime, I fail to see how this is relevant.

Are you sure about that?

Putting a mark on a piece of paper doesn't make a liberal democracy. Do homosexuals and women have equal opportunies in democratic nations in the ME... truely??

If they do not have equal opportunites than it is not a democracy. That does not mean a democracy can't work.

True the will have to seel their oil, and there is plenty of other buyers than the West.

Plenty of buyers? Seeing as the vast majority of the world's capital is concentrated in the West, I am curious where these other buyers will come from.

Very hard to see how Pakistan would be turned into glass, seeing as they aren't a desert country as such.

It's a figure of speech.

Suez Canal, I suppose it isn't important, just basically the biggest trade route in the world.

Which is why I find it unlikely that a purely democratic Egypt will bar people from using it. It generates quite an income for a relatively low amount of work.

You see Kelzie we are so used to democracy we forget how fragile it is, how it can be ursurped and corrupted.

We forget? Democracy is not "fragile". It is however dirty. Especially in the beginning. People have to get their hands dirty and sweat and argue and it doesn't always look perfect in the beginning. That doesn't mean a) that it's impossible or b) that only certain people are "ready" for it.

Demoracy works for us, completely. How has democracy faired in Africa, the ME, Latin America, in those places where democracy can barely stand up.

We're discussing the ME, it's doing fine in Latin America and in parts of Africa. It's a work in progress.

If you want to democratise the world by force, fine, but don't complain about the consequences

I'm not. You are.

That was before the Israeli-Lebanon war wasn't it? I'm not looking forward to the next elections in Lebanon.

I'd be willing to bet it's for a government that can actually control its borders.

 

[Goobieman]

The people did vote for Hitler,

In the same way that the people of the US vote for Supreme Court justices

although voting isn't necessarily required for sovereignty. Just makes it a whole lot easier to decide who represents their people and who doesn't.

Seems like your defintion of 'sovereign' is a little less than specific, and differs from that commonly held -- and that held by "international law".

Mmm...yes, to a degree. A treaty is an agreement between two governments who presumably represent their people. If they do, there's no problem. If one or both don't, than issues arise. Like when a random evil dictator sells his countries diamonds to build palaces while his people starve.

Under what pretense did the USSR represent the people of the USSR?
And doesnt this mean that Iraq did not enjoy the 'protection' of "International Law"?

Well, the definition of "sovereign" has evolved a great deal. It used to be "of God/of the people". Now it's just "of the people". The populous counts for a lot more and the leaders a lot less than used to be the case.

Only if you argue that a state's sovereignty is -only- derived from the people.
Ir Iraq was not a sovereign state, what was it?

Please note I'm not harassing you -- I just havent seen this particular argument as to your definition of 'sovereignty', and how 'sovereignty' relates to 'international law'.

 

[Kelzie]

UK v Iceland, the Cod War, 1975-1976 :mrgreen:

:lol: If that's what war is reduced to, I can live with it.

 

[Kelzie]

In the same way that the people of the US vote for Supreme Court justices

Yes. The people we vote for vote for them. Seems a decent, if distilled system.

Seems like your defintion of 'sovereign' is a little less than specific, and differs from that commonly held -- and that held by "international law".

Differs from that held by international law, surely. But only cause quite a few states would throw a fit if say the UN only recognized states as sovereign if they represented their people.

Under what pretense did the USSR represent the people of the USSR?
And doesnt this mean that Iraq did not enjoy the 'protection' of "International Law"?


Only if you argue that a state's sovereignty is -only- derived from the people.
Ir Iraq was not a sovereign state, what was it?

Please note I'm not harassing you -- I just havent seen this particular argument as to your definition of 'sovereignty', and how 'sovereignty' relates to 'international law'.

I don't feel harassed. I wish I could take credit for this definition of sovereignty, but alas, Rousseau beat me to it. This sums it up better than I'm sure I could:

Popular sovereignty is the doctrine that the state is created by and therefore subject to the will of its people, who are the source of all political power.

Popular sovereignty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Goes very well with my zeal for world democracy. :mrgreen:

 

[Goobieman]

Yes. The people we vote for vote for them. Seems a decent, if distilled system.

Well, if "appointed by the head of state and the confirmed by the legislature" is "elected", then yes -- Hitler was elected.

Differs from that held by international law, surely. But only cause quite a few states would throw a fit if say the UN only recognized states as sovereign if they represented their people.

Well, I have lttile trouble with the argument that the UN should only consist of democratic states -- but as international law exists outside the UN, membership of the UN isnt really relevant. I have to seperate the idea of "free people" from "sovereign" as it presumes that only states with "free people" enjoy the rights held by states. A state is a state, and is it sovereign because of its status as a state, the liberty of its people notwitstanding.

I don't feel harassed. I wish I could take credit for this definition of sovereignty, but alas, Rousseau beat me to it. This sums it up better than I'm sure I could:
Goes very well with my zeal for world democracy. :mrgreen:

That's fine, and i dont disagree -- but if a 'state' isnt 'sovereign', what is it?